1. Organizational learning theory
1.2 Organizational learning as a process
1.2.2 Models of organizational learning
The process of organizational learning consists of several distinct steps that ultimately lead to new knowledge being institutionalized in the organization. This will lead to new routines, procedures, norms et cetera, that affect how new experiences and knowledge are perceived by the individuals within the organization. Scholars have identified various steps through which new knowledge must flow in order to become “institutionalized”. Beyond the discrete steps in this process, the dynamics linking these steps are crucial to understand organizational learning.37
35 Fiol and Lyles (1985). Organizational Learning, p. 808.
36 Daniel Kim (1993). The Link between Individual and Organizational Learning. Sloan Management Review, 35(1), p. 45-48 37 Mary Crossan, Cara Maurer and Roderick White (2011). Reflections on the 2009 AMR Decade Award: Do we have a theory of
organizational learning? Academy of Management Review, 36(3), p. 449
This subsection explores several analytical models that represent the process of learning, encompassing the steps, and the linkages between them that should lead to organizational knowledge.
Invariably, organizational learning starts with knowledge acquisition or creation. Individuals or “units” within the organization produce based on experience from internal processes or interaction with the environment.38 An early model of organizational learning that incorporates this notion is provided by George Huber. He distinguishes four processes of organizational learning: knowledge acquisition, information distribution, information interpretation, and organizational memory. Knowledge acquisition denotes the process of how organizations obtain knowledge. While this may seem a straightforward explanation, Huber identifies various sub-processes of knowledge acquisition. He contends that knowledge can come from different sources such as experience, and emulation.39
When new knowledge (or information at that stage) is acquired, it must then be distributed, so it becomes available to other members of the organization.40 This a prerequisite for the subsequent step: information interpretation by the organization. How the new information is understood within the organization can determine how it is to be used for knowledge. Interpretation of information is shaped by the institutional knowledge already present. Huber acknowledges that this step requires more study.41
In the final step, organizational memory, the acquired knowledge is stored in the organization beyond individual members. This means that in spite of personnel turnover, the knowledge remains available to the organization. Examples of how such knowledge is stored are standard operating procedures, routines and scripts. However, this concerns solely routine knowledge that can be used for day-to-day operations. How other types of knowledge could be institutionalized is beyond Huber’s article.42
Another perspective on how knowledge is converted from the individual level towards the organizational level is offered by Ikujiro Nonaka and Noboru Konno. They argue that a key process of sharing knowledge between individuals is done tacitly. In this process of “Socialization”, knowledge is shared by close proximity. This means that the way an individual behaves can be an example to another individual, who thereby acquires new knowledge. In order to disseminate knowledge beyond nearby individuals, it must be made explicit in terms that are comprehensible to others. Through this externalization step, for instance by verbal dialogue or written instructions, individual knowledge can become part of the mental model of a group of individuals, such as a team of co-workers.43 In the subsequent combination step explicit knowledge is systemically
38 Kim (1993). The Link between Individual and Organizational Learning, pp. 37-50; Argote and Miron-Spektor (2010).
Organizational Learning, p. 1128-1129;
39 George Huber (1991). Organizational learning, p. 91-99.
40 Ibidem, p. 101.
41 Ibidem, p. 102-103.
42 Ibidem, p. 105-107.
43 Nonaka and Konno (1998). The Concept of “Ba”, p. 42-44.
captured and integrated by the organization. This knowledge originates both from within and outside of the organization. Crucial in this step is agreement within the organization about the validity of this knowledge, so it can be translated into concrete steps to enact change.44 Ultimately, the organizational knowledge must be internalized by the individuals in the organization. The relevance of the knowledge is to be accepted by the individual. Knowledge can be internalized by education, training and exercises. In this way, explicit knowledge becomes tacit, which shapes how individuals interpret their environment and experiences, making this model of learning cyclical in nature.45
A more recent and intricate model is provided by Barbara Grah, et al.46 Based on a literature review the authors construct a model that adds applying the acquired knowledge to enact change within the organization. They incorporate Huber’s processes, but argue that storing the knowledge is insufficient for the process of learning to continue. Knowledge has to be applied practically in order to produce new experiences and information feedback, thereby perpetuating the cycle of learning.47 Another noteworthy addition to this model is that the authors include the factors that act as “learning inhibitors and facilitators”.48
An often-used model of organizational learning is that by Mary Crossan, et al.49 This model consists of the steps intuiting, interpreting, integrating, and institutionalizing. In the first step, intuiting, it is contended that learning or acquiring knowledge through experience by individuals is often a subconscious process. What an individual learns is subject to prior knowledge and the individual’s general aptitude to recognize patterns, similarities and differences. Consequently, this learning is intuitive and results in tacit knowledge.50
This tacit knowledge has to be given meaning by both the individual, and the group the individual is part of, through shared observations, and language in the interpreting step. From this the group can develop actions that utilize of the acquired knowledge by integrating it within the organization’s operations. For instance, a solution is found and implemented for fixing an identified error in the organizational process in which the group takes part. The final step, institutionalizing, ensures that the knowledge is shared and incorporated throughout the organization. In this step, the knowledge results in changed strategies, structures and routines.
Because such changes affect the whole organization, institutionalization requires the support of the leadership. Thus, institutionalization will occur after careful deliberation and therefore will
44 Ibidem, p. 44-45.
45 Ibidem, p. 45.
46 Barbara Grah, et al. (2016). Expanding the Model of Organizational Learning, pp. 183-212.
47 Ibidem, p. 204.
48 Ibidem, p. 196.
49 See for exmple Sandra Duarte Aponte and Delio Castaneda Zapata (2013). A model of organizational learning in practice.
Estudios Gerenciales, 29, pp. 439-444; Maria Aragon, Daniel Jimenez and Raquel Sanz Valle (2013). Training and performance: The mediating role of organizational learning. Business Research Quarterly, 17, pp. 161-173.
50 Crossan, et al. (1999). An Organizational Learning Framework, p. 526-527.
require time.51 In turn the acquired knowledge will at all levels form feedback, and shape how the organization operates and how new experiences are perceived.52
Another, rather straightforward model on organizational learning is offered by Marleen Huysman.
The main contribution of her model is that it incorporates the environment: it incorporates sources of knowledge outside of the organization.53 At the same time, the organization influences the available knowledge in its environment.54 Not only can knowledge be acquired through the experience of other organizations, such as competing firms, but also from feedback provided by clients. Furthermore, organizations acquire new knowledge when they take on new employees or hire consultants. Huysman asserts that, just as internal learning processes, the acquisition and institutionalization of external knowledge can be prone to miscommunication and biases.55 Consequently, incorporating knowledge, such as best practices from other organizations, does not necessarily lead to enhanced performance.
Of course, this subsection does not provide an exhaustive list of models on organizational learning.56 By dissecting the processes, insight can be obtained about the constituent steps of organizational learning (see table 1). Furthermore, the depicted analytical models show how scholars in the field themselves interpret organizational learning as a process. By assessing the selected descriptions of the learning process in organizations, several points stand out.
First of all, the process starts with the acquisition of knowledge. Huysman, and Crossan et al., situate this step at the individual level while Huber and Grah et al. see this as an organizational function. Secondly, new knowledge must be disseminated, and interpreted if it is to be used by the organization. Third, all authors acknowledge that learning in itself is subject to faults and does not necessarily lead to organizational improvement. Finally, the assessed literature acknowledges that this process is cyclical in nature so that institutionalized knowledge shapes how new knowledge is perceived by members of the organization.
51 Ibidem, p. 527-530.
52 Ibidem, p. 532.
53 Crossan, et al. do acknowledge that learning is not a closed cycle, but they do not explicitly depict it in their model, see page 522.
54 Huysman (2000). An organizational learning approach, p. 139-140.
55 Ibidem, p. 140
56 See for example: Mikael Holmqvist (2003). A Dynamic Model of Intra- and Interorganizational Learning. Organization Studies, 24(1), p 114; Anna Wiewiora, Michelle Smidt and Artemis Chang (2019). The ‘How’ of Multilevel Learning Dynamics: A Systemic Literature Review Exploring How Mechanisms Bridge Learning Between Individuals, Teams/Projects and the Organization.
European Management Review, 16, p. 99-102.
Huber/Grah, et al. Nonaka and Konno Crossan et al. Huysman
Knowledge acquisition Socialization Intuiting Individual knowledge
Information distribution Externalization Interpreting Communicated knowledge Information interpretation Combination Integrating Organizational knowledge Organizational memory Internalization Institutionalizing Environmental knowledge
Knowledge application (Grah) - -
-Table 1: Identified steps of organizational learning. Note that the processes as identified by these scholars are cyclical.
While identification of the steps of organizational learning is an important aspect for understanding the process of organizational learning, it is by no means sufficient. Analytical models as depicted above can be perceived as too mechanistic, and devoid of human influences.
Fortunately, the literature on organizational learning has ample attention to the political aspects of organizations and the other factors influencing organizational learning.